[HN Gopher] Meta Scrutinizing Sheryl Sandberg's Use of Facebook ...
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Scrutinizing Sheryl Sandberg's Use of Facebook Resources over
Several Years
Author : johndfsgdgdfg
Score : 78 points
Date : 2022-06-10 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| She leaned in too far.
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| Oh that's a good one.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I don't get it :(
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| belval wrote:
| "Lean In" is a book written by Sheryl Sandberg:
| https://leanin.org/
| [deleted]
| TedShiller wrote:
| The next book is Bend Over
| ykevinator2 wrote:
| llaolleh wrote:
| There's adversity in option B.
| atonse wrote:
| Sheryl Sandberg's decline reminds me of Theranos. It was riding
| high as a kite until it all came crashing down and everyone came
| out of the woodwork to pile on and say "we always knew!!!"
| ternaryoperator wrote:
| Not sure I understand your point. There's nothing similar
| between the two except for women as the protagonists. There is
| no allegation of fraud with Sandberg, and I'm not seeing anyone
| (much less "everyone") saying about Sandberg that they "always
| knew."
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Her "decline"? "it all came crashing down"?
|
| I'm not _at all_ a fanboy of Sandberg or FB, but your analogy
| is a bit, shall we say, "flawed."
|
| If you think her tenure at FB was built on lies like Holmes'
| was, then please specify how. You just don't like FB, ok, I
| don't either.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _everyone came out of the woodwork to pile on_
|
| Or those who have always been saying they're poison get
| highlighted.
| [deleted]
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't particularly like Sheryl Sandberg, but this strikes me as
| _precisely_ the kind of "fair weather" treatment I'd expect from
| Facebook's Boy King: company resources are at the leadership's
| personal disposal when all is smooth, and is a rope to hang you
| with as soon as you lose his favor.
| [deleted]
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| Uhhhh obviously?
|
| For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I am, blessedly, nowhere close to that "advanced" in my
| career (or management style).
|
| And I don't think it's obvious; hounding your ex-COO while
| she's still on your board is eyebrow-raising even by the
| antisocial standards of executive behavior.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Especially when she played a giant part in making Facebook
| what it is today.
| the_biot wrote:
| I don't think it's surprising at all, especially in a big
| company like Facebook. At that kind of company, at that
| level, it's a snakepit. The more you did for the company,
| the deeper the knife in your back will go.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| People seem drawn to the fantasy of sociopathic behavior,
| like Game of Thrones and 'reality' TV shows with zero-sum
| outcomes. People aren't angels, but they aren't
| sociopaths either.
|
| Also, Zuckerberg needs the loyalty of talented people,
| present and future; if it looks like even Sandberg gets
| stabbed in the back, then that loyalty will be hard to
| come by. Also, burning the bridge with Sandberg will burn
| the bridge with Sandberg's network, which is probably
| considerable. Nobody rules alone.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Isn't it funny how the first scene in The Social Network is
| about how Zuck is insufferable?
|
| That scene keeps getting its money's worth.
| StrangeSound wrote:
| https://archive.ph/pIN9V
| ozzythecat wrote:
| When the company was doing well, the stock was doing great, etc
| etc, it was all good. Now that the story isn't looking as great,
| we're seeing execs get thrown under the bus.
|
| I'm not pushing any opinion on whether she did something wrong or
| unacceptable. But this is happening, just as Dave Clark "resigns"
| from Amazon, who also doesn't have the same economic outlook they
| benefited from during the pandemic.
|
| Amazing how quickly these execs fall out of favor.
|
| The closest comparison I can think of from my big tech experience
| is the show "Man in the High Castle", not an amazing show or
| anything, but I see parallels in the way it captures how Nazi
| henchmen were sitting high one minute and potentially murdered
| the next minute, or as soon as they fell out of favor.
|
| Yeah I know I sound absurd drawing any kind of comparison with
| Nazi Germany.
|
| But in my experience, it doesn't matter who you are. You always
| have some boss, if you don't deliver and meet their expectations,
| you'll get thrown under the bus pretty rapidly. There's more
| empathy in first level and skip level managers at Amazon than any
| director level.
|
| In my time at Amazon, I was actually trained and coached on
| removing myself from certain situations and not interfering or
| establishing certain relationships because it would help me
| ultimately do better whatever is right for the company.
|
| (I was a 11 year Amazon veteran before I left last year).
| miketery wrote:
| > I was actually trained and coached on removing myself from
| certain situations and not interfering or establishing certain
| relationships
|
| Can you expand on this? I'm sure I've made mistakes in the past
| that had I had some mentorship or was more receptive I would've
| faired better.
| nostrademons wrote:
| This is by design. To quote Steve Jobs:
|
| "When you're the janitor, reasons matter," Jobs told his newly-
| minted VPs. "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons
| stop mattering."
|
| "In other words,' (Jobs continued,) "when the employee becomes
| a vice president, he or she must vacate all excuses for
| failure. A vice president is responsible for any mistakes that
| happen, and it doesn't matter what you say."
|
| I've heard some economic analysis that indicates that this is
| _why_ executives are paid so much. As an exec, you 're
| responsible for company performance, and if the company
| underperforms, you will get fired, and this could be for a
| number of reasons that have nothing to do with anything you
| did. To get people who actually understand & respect the risks
| (you don't want anyone who doesn't in an exec position), you
| have to pay them enough that they're basically set for life
| after a few years in the job, because in a few years they may
| find themselves unemployed and unemployable.
|
| (Of course, this creates another moral hazard issue, where once
| you've paid them all this money and given them this generous
| severance option, they have no incentive to actually do well,
| because they're already collecting their retirement plan. C'est
| la vie - this is why you get execs that make superficial
| changes while the company lumbers on to its demise, and then
| cache out with 9-figure parachutes when everything goes
| bankrupt.)
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > if the company underperforms, you will get fired, and this
| could be for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with
| anything you did.
|
| It's your job to do something effective. The outcome can't
| 'have nothing to do with anything you did.'
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >I see parallels in the way it captures how Nazi henchmen were
| sitting high one minute and potentially murdered the next
| minute, or as soon as they fell out of favor
|
| Pretty apt comparison actually. If you a country run like a
| modern company, you get an autocratic regime. Curious how even
| the most die-hard leftists seem to be a-ok with this.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Curious how even the most die-hard leftists seem to be a-ok
| with this.
|
| You should talk with some actual 'leftists'! They aren't at
| all what your sources say. Just read some leftist blogs or
| news sources or talk on HN. It turns out that the great
| majority of people of all stripes are reasonable, normal
| humans, and the those who tell you otherwise are the threats,
| the ones trying polarize and control others through hate - if
| people started having civil, respectiful conversations, the
| polarizers would be done.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The difference between countries and companies is
| competition. If you're in a dictatorial company and don't
| like the dictator, leave and work for a different company. If
| you're in a dictatorial country, you're stuck.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Also, it's your country. It's someone else's company.
| perfffay wrote:
| Hmmmm it's almost as if they want to make her look bad. CAREFUL,
| she knows all of Marc's secrets. If pushed hard enough she may
| flip to protect her ( fake ) 'do gooder' image. Go on, Sheryl,
| tell the CA AG what really happened re: Cambridge Analytica.
| [deleted]
| greatpostman wrote:
| Knows his secrets? She was an active proponent and a main
| driver behind Facebook. She's as if not more guilty
| homero wrote:
| Yeah but easily becomes state's witness with immunity
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Well, I think that's the point. I think Zuck is trying to
| warn Sheryl about trying to distance herself from Facebook as
| part of reputation rehabilitation campaign.
| schmeckleberg wrote:
| boopmaster wrote:
| Political hit piece stinks like Facebook butthurt.
|
| What an embarrassing company.
|
| If they behave this way towards execs, how do they treat the
| little guys?
|
| Would not wish to work for Meta.
|
| Good on her for leaving.
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| It's scumbags all the way down.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Good riddance!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-10 23:01 UTC)